Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
who is going to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting illustrative answers. for instance when ron johnson got hk to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so dem mon stra tiff and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling perform snens i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm say something for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basical
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go over the border into turkey every day. and it's very easy for pkk fighters, kurdish fighters to meld into those refugees, to go across the border and carry out terrorists attacks insidef tuey. no government in
and put him in place in the pentagon. >> in terms of the way he answered various questions, i know you took issue with the tough question style of republican senators. is the white house pleased with how senator hagel answered questions? >> i believe he did a fine job. if you look, if you take all the news clips, not the whole performance, but the news clips that have dominated television report and on this, they have focused on a series of exchanges that i think, by any estimation, largely represent the injuring over issues like, why did you disagree with me over iraq? we are prepared to say that senator obama had a view on iraq. it was one of the reasons he ran on that position and one in 2008 against senator mccain. he vowed to end the war in iraq in a with a protected our national security interests. now, he is focused on winding down the war in afghanistan. someone bizarrely, and given that we have 56,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan, senators yesterday, in a hearing for the nomination of the secretary of defense asked very few questions about that active war. instead, they
knife in the drawer at the pentagon. that's the job description. he's not going to the department of the interior. in terms of whether or not republicans will vote to confirm him, democrats need to hold together and get five republicans to confirm him and he should be able to become the next secretary of defense. there are grumblings among republican senators that they may consider putting a hold on his information to extracts more answers from the administration on the issue of benghazi. that this could be leverage to get to the bottom of that debacle and understanding better the administration's timeline, position, since they didn't get straight answers from former secretary of state hillary clinton. >> yeah. >> i think if they do that, it would be a big political mistake. the perception would be very negative for the republicans. >> any single senator can put a hold a nomination. it's been done before. in terms of voting down the nomination, that hasn't happened to a senator since john tower. i don't see that happening. >> let's talk immigration and gun control. both were big t
's now responsible for sustainability. these reports are just coming from an office. deep in the pentagon or department of homeland security. these are deputy secretaries or assistant secretary at minimum level. as a result you get senior interested in these. the interesting day is the first set of these is a lot of exploring a better understanding of challenges within the big enterprise we have an beginning to put together strategies in the path we are headed. we are beginning to make great progress towards these goals. we're implementing strategy and dining areas that need to be addressed. the sustainability plans today look a little bit different than three years ago. if you're interested in finding them, there are performance stack of available for the public. >> is what way do they look different? >> they now are -- were not implementing strategies. if you look back, and they may have been trying things early on and now you're finding what works were also fighting we can take the strategies themselves and look at the department of transportation is doing really well in greenhouse gas
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)